Special Courts For Juvenile Offenders
1. Introduction
Juvenile offenders are children and adolescents who commit crimes. The law recognizes that children have different levels of maturity, understanding, and culpability compared to adults, so they require specialized justice systems.
India’s juvenile justice framework is primarily governed by:
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act 2015)
Earlier: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) influences national laws.
Purpose
Rehabilitate rather than punish children.
Ensure a child-friendly judicial process.
Protect children from adult criminals.
Encourage reintegration into society.
2. Special Courts for Juvenile Offenders
2.1 Types of Courts
Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs)
Deals with children in conflict with law (juvenile offenders).
Composed of:
A judicial magistrate
Two social workers, at least one woman.
Powers:
Determine whether a child committed an offence.
Recommend rehabilitation or care programs.
Can transfer certain cases to Children’s Court for serious offences by children aged 16–18.
Children’s Court
Established under Section 18 of JJ Act 2015.
Hears cases transferred by JJBs or serious crimes committed by children 16–18 years (Section 15, JJ Act 2015).
Objective: to ensure fair trial, confidentiality, and child-friendly procedures.
2.2 Key Features of Special Courts
Trials in camera (private hearings).
Avoid publicizing child identity (Section 21, JJ Act).
Avoid adult sentencing; focus on rehabilitation.
Use probation, community service, counseling, and institutional care instead of imprisonment.
Speedy trials (JJ Act mandates trial within 4 months).
3. Important Case Laws on Juvenile Justice and Special Courts
1. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) – Age Determination and Juvenile Justice
Facts:
Petition challenged the practice of trying children below 18 as adults, especially in heinous crimes.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized:
Children under 18 cannot be tried as adults for offences committed before 18.
Age verification is crucial, but any doubt must favor the child.
Special Courts/JJBs must follow child-friendly procedures.
Principle Established:
Upholds rehabilitation and protection over punishment.
JJBs must adhere to guidelines for child-friendly justice.
2. Salil Bali v. Union of India (2006) – Role of Special Courts and Rehabilitation
Facts:
Petition raised issues regarding overcrowding and poor conditions in juvenile homes.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed:
Establishment of special courts for juveniles across India.
Implementation of rehabilitation programs, vocational training, and counseling.
Children should not be lodged in adult prisons.
Principle Established:
Reinforces the purpose of special courts: protection, rehabilitation, and child-friendly justice.
3. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) – Juvenile Rights in Detention
Facts:
Juveniles were kept with adult prisoners, facing physical and mental abuse.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled:
Juveniles must be segregated from adult prisoners.
Special Courts must ensure minimum hardship and safety in detention.
Emphasized rehabilitation programs in observation homes.
Principle Established:
Reinforces the need for separate facilities and judicial oversight for juveniles.
4. State of Maharashtra v. K.K. (1991) – Confidentiality and Child Protection
Facts:
Issue: Media/public reporting of juvenile identity in criminal cases.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held:
Identity of children in conflict with law must not be disclosed.
Special Courts/JJBs must conduct in-camera proceedings.
Principle Established:
Protects children from social stigma.
Ensures justice while safeguarding privacy.
5. Anoop Kumar v. State of Haryana (2000) – Transfer of Cases to Children’s Court
Facts:
A juvenile aged 17 involved in a heinous crime. Question whether JJB could try him or transfer to Children’s Court.
Judgment:
Supreme Court clarified:
JJB can determine age and nature of offence.
Serious crimes by children 16–18 may be tried in Children’s Court.
Courts must balance rehabilitation and accountability.
Principle Established:
Special Courts must have flexibility to handle serious offences, but the child’s age is crucial.
6. Shiv Kumar v. State of UP (2005) – Rehabilitation vs Punishment
Facts:
Juveniles were sent to prison instead of reformative homes.
Judgment:
Supreme Court emphasized:
Juveniles must be placed in observation or special homes, not regular prisons.
Special Courts/JJBs have authority to recommend rehabilitation.
Principle Established:
Reinforces rehabilitative philosophy behind special juvenile courts.
7. In Re: Baby R (2012) – Custody and Child Protection
Facts:
Case involved custody and welfare of a juvenile offender during trial.
Judgment:
Court held:
Special Courts must ensure welfare and proper care of children, even during judicial proceedings.
Rehabilitation and mental care are integral to proceedings.
Principle Established:
Judicial process in special courts must prioritize child’s best interests.
⭐ 4. Summary of Special Courts’ Features and Case Law Impact
| Feature | Importance | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Segregation from adults | Safety & rehabilitation | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India |
| Confidential proceedings | Protects child identity | State of Maharashtra v. K.K. |
| Age consideration | Determines trial jurisdiction | Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India |
| Transfer to Children’s Court for heinous offences | Flexibility in trial | Anoop Kumar v. State of Haryana |
| Rehabilitation focus | Avoids punitive measures | Salil Bali v. Union of India; Shiv Kumar v. State of UP |
| Custody & care during trial | Child welfare | In Re: Baby R |
5. Conclusion
Special Courts for Juvenile Offenders, through Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts, aim to:
Ensure fair, speedy, and child-friendly trials.
Rehabilitate rather than punish.
Protect juveniles from adult prisons, stigma, and trauma.
Align Indian law with international standards like the UNCRC.
The case laws discussed highlight:
Segregation of juveniles,
Confidentiality of identity,
Age-based trial decisions,
Rehabilitation and mental health care,
Proper functioning of JJBs and Children’s Courts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments